Academic Perspectives in Higher Education
Volume 2
Article 6
4-2016
Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to
Evolve?
Kimberly Deel
Old Dominion University
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe
Part of the Higher Education Commons
Recommended Citation
Deel, Kimberly (2016) "Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?," Academic Perspectives in Higher Education: Vol. 2,
Article 6.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ODU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Academic Perspectives in
Higher Education by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Deel: Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
Kimberly Deel
Old Dominion University
Abstract
The American college professor has traditionally filled three primary roles in institutions
of higher education: that of teacher, of scholar, and of servant leader. But a call of alarm has
been sounded of late and some suggest that the economic turbulence of recent years has given
rise to a Pandora’s box of public scrutiny resulting in fissures that threaten to fracture the
venerable triumvirate. The purpose of this essay is to examine the evolution of the faculty’s role
in higher education, to invite thoughtful comparison between these past and present functions,
and to provoke discussion regarding the future of the professoriate in an increasingly critical
social milieu.
Published by ODU Digital Commons, 2016
1
Academic Perspectives in Higher Education, Vol. 2 [2016], Art. 6
Teaching
Since the inception of higher education in the United States, the faculty has comprised
the nucleus of the educational atom. Modeled after the European universities, the first American
colleges recognized the value of utilizing their own graduates as faculty (Geiger, 2011). Thus
evolved the ancient model of education, whereby knowledge had been bestowed from a learned
professor unto a novice apprentice through a format of lecture and Socratic questioning.
Although pedagogies have since greatly expanded and society no longer views the professor as
the omniscient master writing on the tabula rasa, this essential role of teacher, of examiner, of
guide, still lies at the very heart of what it means to work in academia.
Most constituents would agree that teaching should remain the professor’s primary
purpose, yet often denigrate the very role that facilitates learning. Ernest Boyer (1992)
emphasizes the student-centered nature of America’s first colleges: “teaching was a central –
even sacred – function” (p. 87). However, as viewed through a modern day lens, society has
since drastically devalued teachers and the profession of teaching: “today, teaching is often
viewed as a routine function, tacked on, something almost anyone can do” (Boyer, 1990, p. 23).
Society trivializes the profession even further by encouraging individuals to obtain teaching
licensures as mere fail-safes, a sentiment echoed by George Bernard Shaw’s oft-repeated line
“those who can, do; those who can’t, teach” (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms and
Phrasal verbs).
However, while public esteem for educators has certainly decreased, college instructors
report that their enthusiasm for the art of teaching has not waned. A 2010 study entitled “Why
Do They Teach?” reveals that college professors rated “the joy of teaching your subject . . . as
the strongest factor contributing to their job satisfaction and persistence in the classroom”
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
2
Deel: Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
(Marston, para 17). Leslie (2002) concurs that faculty “derive measurable job satisfaction from
teaching” (p. 69), and even indicates that the intrinsic benefits associated with teaching can be
more important than extrinsic factors in terms of job selection.
Other studies further support teaching as most professors’ raison d’être. “By more than
2-1, they consider teaching more interesting and more important” than research (Schuster, as
cited in Bok, 2013, p. 186). From an international perspective, American professors have also
been found to gain more pleasure from their teaching responsibilities than professors in
comparable nations (Bok, 2013). Additionally, a study of professors who prolonged retirement
until after the age of 70 found that the primary reason they had continued their work was because
they enjoyed it, and specifically that they enjoyed teaching more than any other professional task
(Dorfman, 2000).
The Public Demand for Accountability
Unfortunately, even the assurance of a faculty that avows an affinity for teaching and an
inherent belief in the process of education no longer wholly satisfies an increasingly critical
public. Constituents today demand not only quantifiable but widely disseminated evidence of
learning outcomes. A much-publicized study conducted by Arum and Roska (2011) indicates
that students demonstrate few measurable learning gains during their college years, especially
regarding the development of writing and critical thinking skills. Findings such as these have led
critics to question the effectiveness of college faculty and to cast doubt on even the value of the
college degree in today’s precarious economic climate. Reports of rising tuition prices, high
unemployment and underemployment rates for new graduates, and overwhelming student loan
debt have increased the public demand for evidence justifying costs and assuring satisfactory
return on investment (Bok, 2011).
Published by ODU Digital Commons, 2016
3
Academic Perspectives in Higher Education, Vol. 2 [2016], Art. 6
The Risks of Linking Assessment to Accountability
Historically the college classroom has been considered inviolable, and collegiate faculty
has primarily been shielded from external pressures to modify instructional practices to meet a
standard set of goals and objectives. However, “ultimately, public institutions of higher
education are broadly answerable to the people who support them” (Schmidtlein & Berdahl,
2011, p. 74). The resulting calls for greater accountability measures threaten to erode faculty
autonomy in many facets, not the least of which is distancing faculty from the most creative
aspects of teaching, such as curriculum design. Economic pressures resulting in transformations
in university management and a move toward a business model have also given rise to curricular
changes. Champagne (2011) asserts that when employment is used as an assessment outcome
“the academic freedom of individual faculty members is eroded by the imperative to reshape
course content in light of the demands of the job market” (p. 3). Additionally, one only needs to
look to the K-12 arena to view myriad examples of teacher demotivation and dissatisfaction,
widely anecdotally attributed to the mandated adoption of state prescribed curriculums and the
resulting pressures of high stakes testing (Berryhill, Linney, & Fromewick, 2009).
Instituting greater accountability measures not only diminishes professional joie de vivre,
it also casts doubt on the professors’ very ability to do what they love to do. Faculty members are
viewed as the bedrock of academic institutions and are employed with the mutual understanding
that they possess the requisite capabilities to fulfill the duties of their assignments. As such they
possess a unique level of professional autonomy in comparison with administrative staff (Kuo,
2009). However, in an environment where administrators become the collectors, analyzers, and
disseminators of aggregate rank data, it is not far-fetched to envision an institutional blame game
whereby the professors become sacrificial lambs and contention abounds. Lewis and Altbach
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
4
Deel: Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
(1996) emphasize the faculty’s pessimistic outlook toward faculty/administrator relationships
and note that internationally faculty generally describe these associations as only fair or poor,
believe that faculty has little influence in shaping policy, and do not believe the “fractious”
nature of the relationships can be improved (p. 3). They also express concern that “an alarming
number [of faculty members] feel victimized” (p. 4) because of trends such as increasing
assessment efforts.
Bok (2013) states that “top-down efforts to measure progress for the purposes of
accountability almost always arouse suspicion and opposition from the faculty, and not without
reason” (p. 196). Concerns that student assessment data could be used by states as a central
component of performance-based funding models are no longer purely speculative. Additionally,
it is feasible that assessment data could even be used institutionally to justify awarding raises or
bonuses, creating friction among faculty members and tempting some to teach to the test, an
outcome that would result in the erosion of student learning gains in key areas such as critical
thinking skills. The concern also exists that the data obtained will not be useful in any capacity
and all efforts put forth throughout the process of collection and analysis will be nothing more
than a futile exercise in waste of time, money, and manpower.
Thus, as the public continues to demand more evidence of student learning gains, it is
important that institutions emphasize the limitations related to efforts of standardizing
assessment. Schmidtlein and Berdahl state “complex learning outcomes are extremely difficult to
identify, to agree on and then assign priorities, and to communicate to government officials and
the public” (2011, p. 79). For example, in some disciplines such as the fine arts it can be nearly
impossible to define and to quantitatively assess standard objectives. Moreover, many faculty
members view additional assessment as simply redundant. They argue that course artifacts such
Published by ODU Digital Commons, 2016
5
Academic Perspectives in Higher Education, Vol. 2 [2016], Art. 6
as projects, compositions, and exams are the true measures of the specific student learning that
occur within the confines of the course. Additionally, they contend that accountability is already
inextricably tied to student learning in the form of student evaluations, which serve as safeguards
to learning and provide valuable qualitative feedback.
Despite public concern regarding faculty quality, Schmidtlein & Berdahl (2011) assert
that “the assessment of student learning outcomes and their implications for academic programs
appear best accomplished within institutions, by faculty, who are the ones with detailed
knowledge of the students and their academic progress and accomplishments” ( p. 80). However,
as these learning artifacts are not transmittable in aggregate form, the public is often unaware to
what extent student assessment actually takes place. Thus, it is imperative that the professor
adopt the additional role of public relations person. Faculty members today must assure the
public that they are skilled planners, facilitators, and evaluators of student learning. In essence,
they must defend their competency to teach.
Faculty Workload
In addition to how well college faculty are preparing students, how much time they spend
doing so has also been a recent target for media scrutiny. A recent Forbes article quotes
Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker as postulating “maybe it’s time for faculty and staff to start
thinking about teaching more classes and doing more work” (Lindsay, 2015, para 1). Similar
criticisms abound in other outlets despite evidence that indicates “American professors seem to
be working longer, not shorter, hours, and classroom hours have not declined in recent years”
(Altbach, 2011, p. 238). Schuster and Finkelstein (2006) indicate that between 1984 and 1998 the
number of hours collegiate faculty worked per week increased from 40 to 49, despite no increase
in typical wage earners work week. Additionally, they found that “the proportion of faculty
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
6
Deel: Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
working more than 50 hours a week has doubled since 1972, rising from a significant minority
(23.2% in 1972) to two-fifths by 1998” (p.81). Dennison (2012) also notes that faculty members
report work weeks that extend well beyond the traditional 40-hour week, often averaging 55 to
65 hours per week.
Public Input
However, critics who question faculty productivity cite Zemsky and Massy (2005) whose
theory of the “academic ratchet” (p. 15) supports the public perception that faculty members
neglect their teaching duties in order to spend more time on research. They note that faculty
greatly benefit from receiving their own undergraduate educations at a “smaller, teachingoriented institution,” but that “after years of graduate teaching and experience in the academic
profession, however, college faculty learned to seek “relief” from the responsibilities of teaching,
mentoring, and curriculum development within their departments and institutions” (Zemsky &
Massy, 2005, p. 26). By conferring such duties to administrative staff, professors can increase
their allotted amount of discretionary time, ostensibly to increase their chances of obtaining
tenure. Zemsky and Massy observe that “faculty everywhere understood that professional status
depended as much, if not more, on one’s standing within a discipline as on one’s role as a master
instructor within an increasingly complex institution” (p. 26).
Theories such as this and findings from other productivity studies such as have resulted in
a call to action such that “some legislatures [are] considering mandated faculty teaching loads”
(Schmidtlein & Berdahl, 2011, p. 78), an act that would threaten to undermine faculty autonomy.
However, Milem, Berger, and Dey (2000) found that while time spent on teaching and research
correlates with type of institution, “across the system of education, there was a significant
increase in the amount of time faculty reported allocating to teaching and preparing for teaching”
Published by ODU Digital Commons, 2016
7
Academic Perspectives in Higher Education, Vol. 2 [2016], Art. 6
(pp. 466-467). Authors of the same study acknowledge that faculty members have likewise
increased the amount of time spent on research endeavors. Thus, their findings did not support
the assumption that increases in one area of responsibility (i.e. research) negatively affects
another area of responsibility (i.e. teaching). This lends credence to the theory that college
professors are indeed working more hours overall.
Teaching Versus Research
Philip Altbach (2011) asserts that “the appropriate balance between teaching and research
in academe, goes to the heart of the university as an institution and is crucial for the academic
profession” (p. 238). And while both the general public and faculty agree that institutions of
higher education should prioritize teaching over research, it is a commonly accepted fact that the
tenure system does not reward excellence in teaching to the same extent that it rewards
excellence in research. A 1993 study by Fairweather (as cited in Chen, 2015) found that rank and
salary increased with increases in research output, but decreased when associated with teaching
load. Leslie (2002) affirms that correlation between faculty status and salary with research
productivity. Additionally, a disheartening follow-up study from Fairweather (2005) indicates a
continuation of that trend: “despite decade-long efforts to enhance the value of teaching in 4-year
colleges and universities, this study shows that spending more time on teaching, particularly
classroom instruction, still means lower pay. Traditional scholarly productivity remains the
strongest behavioral predictor of faculty pay” (p. 418).
However, this is not to say that universities do not value the teaching abilities of their
faculty. Instead, just as it is difficult to quantitatively assess student learning, it is very difficult
to assess teaching expertise. It is undisputed that the faculty is the “intellectual capital”
(Schuster, 2011, p. 4) of the institution. It is an entirely different matter to put a dollar value on
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
8
Deel: Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
an individual’s worth for a valuable but intangible good, especially since there is an implied level
of competency. Thus, in order to remain equitable, many institutions choose to use the publish or
perish razor as the best quantitative measure available to separate the good from the great.
Scholarship
Conducting scholarly research as a primary professorial task is a relatively new
occurrence. Research was not a consideration in the early American colleges; it was not until the
United States began to require research for the purposes of increasing national security and
eradicating disease and the federal government began funding that research that it truly took root
(Derek Bok, 2013). Although large-scale research endeavors and significant discoveries of the
past immediately come to mind when the typical constituent imagines the science professor’s
role in academic research, the average professor’s daily contributions to the research community
likely remains unclear. Schuster (2006) agrees that the role of researcher is a less well-defined
role than that of teacher. As such, scholarly research tasks can run the gamut from traditional
scientific research conducted in a laboratory of a large research-based institution to searching for
articles in the library in order to keep up to date with advances in one’s field in a community
college (Schuster, 2006). Thus, it is especially important for the purposes of public edification to
note that scholarly productivity can be operationalized differently in different types of
institutions.
Benefits of Scholarly Activity
It is noteworthy that while studies show that research efforts resulting in publication are
increasing at all types of higher education institutions, Schuster (2006) finds that when queried
about how they would like to spend their time, “faculty members almost universally expressed a
desire to shift some portion of their time from teaching to research” (p. 87). Since evidence has
Published by ODU Digital Commons, 2016
9
Academic Perspectives in Higher Education, Vol. 2 [2016], Art. 6
substantiated the assertion that most professors enjoy teaching, and indeed most prefer teaching
more than conducting research, credence is again given to the assumption that research is more
highly valued than teaching in institutions of higher education. In fact, beyond the external
rewards of financial gain and job security, recognition of scholarly productivity has been shown
to be positively associated with job satisfaction. Bozeman and Gaughan (2011) find that
“believing that one’s departmental colleagues appreciate one’s research contributions is the most
important predictor” of job satisfaction (p. 175). This positive emphasis on the social aspect of
scholarship moderates other negative assertions regarding the myriad pressures associated with
publishing requirements, including the lack of available time and funding.
A professor’s scholarly work also positively contributes to the whole of the institution.
Especially in elite institutions where reputation is especially meaningful, works of particular
importance or interest give a university cachet and can provide the extra hook necessary to
compete for the most qualified students. Even at lower and mid-level institutions, and in the light
of current economic times, an influential professor can lure in potential students with the promise
of collaborating on an interesting research topic. Thus, in some regards it is the professor’s role
to act as a kind of academic bait to attract both the most capable students and the most qualified
colleagues.
Service
At odds with Gene Rice’s idea of the “complete scholar” (as cited in Plater, p. 36) is the
notion that service to one’s university and community is a mere footnote in the broader
discussion of the teaching/research debate. Indeed, the third traditional faculty role is most often
described as tertiary in terms of importance. Regularly (and perhaps purposefully) termed last
when listing the job functions of professors, studies indicate that faculty members consider this
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
10
Deel: Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
facet of their workload subordinate to both teaching and research (Reybold & Corda, 2011).
Labeled by Reybold and Corda as the “lesser role” (p. 121), described by Brazeau (2003) as a
victim of the “middle-child syndrome” (p. 1), and referred to by Ward (2003) as a peripheral task
that is “thought outside the “real” work of scholars” (p. 3), the service role is often considered
superfluous. These assertions are reflected in the faculty evaluation process as well despite
attempts by scholars like Boyer (1990) to broaden the definition and valuation of scholarship to
equally include all tenets of the triad. Unfortunately, although this ideal is valued in theory, it has
not been practically applied, a fact that is evidenced in surveys of deans and directors’ rankings
of task importance wherein commitment to service consistently ranked last in terms of earning a
promotion or gaining tenure (Green, 2008).
Definition of Service
Perhaps one of the reasons service contributions are undervalued can be explained by the
nebulous nature of the role itself. Many researchers point out that conceptually the service role is
often considered too broad and overly vague, poorly understood by faculty, administrators, and
the general public, and replete with expectations that are ill-defined and inadequately
communicated by institutions (Schuster, 2008; Ward, 2003; Reybold & Corda, 2011; O’Meara,
2002). In fact, Reybold and Corda found that new faculty members often held a “distorted” view
of the service role, did not clearly understand what type of tasks were associated with this role,
and had little comprehension of the requisite time commitment (p. 132). It appears that this
uncertainty has also been handed down to the faculty progeny. A study conducted by Austin
(2002) investigated doctoral students’ perceptions of professorial tasks and concluded that the
students had little knowledge regarding the faculty service role (pps. 133-134). Moreover, an
Published by ODU Digital Commons, 2016
11
Academic Perspectives in Higher Education, Vol. 2 [2016], Art. 6
earlier study indicated that only 19% of doctoral students felt that they were adequately prepared
by their programs to participate in service related tasks (Golde, as cited in Austin, 2002).
Although new and future faculty members may struggle to define the service role, veteran
professors recognize their responsibility to internal constituents. As noted, Driscoll and Lynton
(1999) emphasize that “no widely accepted typology or categorization exists of the kinds of
service” (p. 16). Thus, service tasks run the gamut from serving on faculty committees to
advising student groups to performing administrative tasks, and these responsibilities may vary
widely within different institutions. Additionally, many tasks such as answering student e-mail
and mentoring can be time consuming and are only meritorious in the sense that they provide
intrinsic rewards. However, in light of heightened social criticism, it is important that professors
understand that the service role should also extend to include their external constituents. For
example, expanding the service role to include outreach to the K-12 arena would demonstrate a
commitment to the community at large and would likewise provide a defense to those who
criticize faculty workload.
Conclusion
The faculty role has traditionally consisted of three main components: teaching, research,
and service. However, the professoriate is currently enduring a period of unrest. Social,
economic, and political factors have combined to create an environment where commentary,
assessment, and judgement have become the norm. As a result, today’s professor can no longer
afford to rely simply on competence in these three areas. Therefore, the role of the professor
must evolve. As institutions of higher education become increasingly accountable to their
external constituents, college professors can no longer afford to leave their heads in the sand.
Instead, they must become more aware of perceived societal obligations, and they must respond
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
12
Deel: Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
appropriately. This will include taking on more tasks and will eventually result in the expansion
of the faculty role.
References
Altbach, P. G. (2011). Harsh realities: The professoriate in the twenty-first century. In P.
Altbach, et al, (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social,
political, and economic challenges (227-253). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins
University Press.
Altbach, P. G. (2011). Patterns of higher education development. In P. Altbach, et al, (Eds.),
American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and economic
challenges (15-36). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2011). Limited learning on college campuses. Society, 48(3), 203-207.
Austin, A. E. (2003). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing new faculty to face changing
expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 119-144.
Bastedo, M. N. (2011). Curriculum in higher education: The organizational dynamics of
academic reform. In P. Altbach, et al, (Eds.), American higher education in the twentyfirst century: Social, political, and economic challenges (409-432). Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Berryhill, J., Linney, J. A., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on
teachers: Are policies too stress provoking for their own good? International Journal of
Education Policy & Leadership, 4(5), 1-14.
Bok, Derek. (2013). Higher education in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Boyer, E. L. (1992). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Issues in
Accounting Education, 7(1), 87-91.
Published by ODU Digital Commons, 2016
13
Academic Perspectives in Higher Education, Vol. 2 [2016], Art. 6
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie
Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bozeman, B. & Gaughan, M. (2011). Job satisfaction among university faculty: Individual,
work, and institutional determinants. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 154-186.
Brazeau, G. (2003). Revisiting faculty service roles – Is “faculty service” a victim of the middle
child syndrome? American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 67(3), 1-6.
Champagne, J. (2011). Teaching in the corporate university: Assessment as a labor issue. AAUP Journal
of Academic Freedom, 2, 1-26.
Chen, C. Y. (2015). A study showing research has been valued over teaching in higher
education. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15(3), 15-32.
Dennison, G. (2012). Faculty workload: An analytical approach. Innovative Higher Education,
37(4), 297-305.
Dorfman, L. T. (2000). Still working after age 70: Older professors in academe. Educational
Gerontology, 26(8), 695-713.
Driscoll, A., Lynton, E. A., & American Association for Higher Education, W. D. (1999).
Making outreach visible: A guide to documenting professional service and outreach.
AAHE Forum on Faculty Roles and Rewards.
Fairweather, J. S. (2005). Beyond the rhetoric: Trends in the relative value of teaching and
research in faculty salaries. Journal of Higher Education, 76(4), 401-422.
Forest, J. J. (2002). I prefer to teach: An international comparison for faculty preference for
teaching over research. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Geiger, R. L. (2011). The ten generations of American higher education. In P. Altbach, et al,
(Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first century: Social, political, and
economic challenges (pp. 37-68). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
14
Deel: Will Social Critique Force the Faculty Role to Evolve?
Geiger, R. L. (2011). Optimizing research and teaching: The bifurcation of faculty roles at
research universities. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The American academic profession:
Transformation in contemporary higher education (pp. 21-42). Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Green, R. G. (2008). Tenure and promotion decisions: The relative importance of teaching,
scholarship, and service. Journal of Social Work Education, 44(2), 117-127.
Kuo, H. (2009). Understanding relationships between academic staff and administrators: An
organisational culture perspective. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,
31(1), 43-54.
Leslie, D. W. (2002). Resolving the dispute: Teaching is academe’s core value. The Journal of
Higher Education, 1, 49-73.
Lewis, L. S., & Altbach, P. G. (1996). Faculty versus administration: A universal problem.
International Higher Education, 2, 2-4.
Lindsay, Tom. (2015, 9 February). Gov. Scott Walker Prods Professors To 'Start Thinking About
Teaching More Classes'. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2015/02/09/war-gov-scott-walker-prodsprofessors-to-start-thinking-about-teaching-more-classes.
Marston, S. H. (2010). Why do they teach? A comparison of elementary, high school, and
college teachers. Education, 131(2), 437+.
Milem, J. F., Berger, J. B., & Dey, E. L. (2000). Faculty time allocation: A study of change over
twenty years. The Journal of Higher Education, (4), 454-475.
O’Meara, K. (2002). Uncovering the values in faculty evaluation of service as scholarship. The
Review of Higher Education, 26(1), 57-80.
Published by ODU Digital Commons, 2016
15
Academic Perspectives in Higher Education, Vol. 2 [2016], Art. 6
Plater, W. M. (2008). The Twenty-First-Century Professoriate. Academe, 94(4), 35-40.
Reybold, L. E., & Corda, K. W. (2011). Faculty identity and the “lesser role”: Service to the
Academy. Journal of the Professoriate, 5(1), 121-148.
Schmidtlein, F. A., & Berdahl, R. O. (2011). Autonomy and accountability: Who controls
academe? In P. Altbach, et al, (Eds.), American higher education in the twenty-first
century: Social, political, and economic challenges (pp. 37-68). Baltimore, MD: The
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schuster, J. H., & Finkelstein, M. J. (2006). The American faculty: The restructuring of
academic work and careers. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schuster, J. H. (2011). The professoriate’s perilous path. In J. C. Hermanowicz (Ed.), The
American academic profession: Transformation in contemporary higher education (pp.
1-17). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Schnaubelt, T, & Statham, A. (2007). Faculty perceptions of service as a mode of scholarship.
Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 14(1), 18-31.
Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach. (n.d.) McGraw-Hill Dictionary of American Idioms
and Phrasal verbs. (2002). Retrieved July 7 2015 from
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Those+who+can%2c+do%3b+those+who+can%27t
%2c+teach.
Ward, K. (2003). Faculty service roles and the scholarship of engagement. ERIC Digest, 1-6.
Zemsky, R., Wegner, G. R., & Massy, W. F. (2005). Remaking the American University:
Market-smart and mission-centered. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
http://digitalcommons.odu.edu/aphe/vol2/iss1/6
16